The conviction under Section 307 IPC stands justified due to premeditated actions with an intention to inflict serious injury.

JUDGMENT

The appellants are accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.409 of 2005 on the files of Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Thodupuzha. The aforesaid case arises from Crime No.330 of 2000 of Peermade Police Station, which was initially registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324 , 341 and 34 of IPC . Later, during the course of the trial, the charge was altered and an offence under Section 307 was included.

2. The prosecution case is as follows:

On 10.11.2000 at 7 pm, the accused persons, due to their previous enmity to the CW1, in furtherance of their common intention, entered into a wordy altercation with him, during the process of which, the 2nd accused caught hold of him around his waist from behind, thereby wrongfully restraining him and the 1st accused inflicted a deep injury on the right side of his chest by using a rubber tapping knife.

3. The crime was registered based on the same. After completing the investigation, a final report was submitted by the police for the offences punishable under Sections 324 , 341 and 34 IPC . The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court–I, Peermade has taken cognizance thereon as C.C.No.85 of 2004. During the course of the trial, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor moved the learned Magistrate to alter the charge by incorporating the offence under Section 307 . Accordingly, as the learned Magistrate was convinced that the allegations and materials in the charge sheet reveal the offence under , has committed the case to the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, as the offence under was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The same was received on file by the Sessions court as S.C.No.409 of 2005 and later, it was made over to the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc- I), Thodupuzha.

4. In support of the prosecution case, PWs 1 to 9 were examined, Exts.P1 to P9 were marked and MO1 was identified. The contradiction in the statements of PWs 2, 3 and 4 were marked as Exts.D1, D2 and D3 series, respectively. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, and the incriminating materials brought out during the course of the trial were put to them, which they denied. No defence evidence was adduced. After the trial, the learned Sessions Judge concluded that the appellants were guilty of the offence under Section 307 IPC and accordingly, both of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years each. This appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the aforesaid finding of conviction and sentence.

5. Heard Sri.C.K.Vidhyasagar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.Sudheer Gopalakrishnan, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the materials available on record do not justify the conviction under Section 307 IPC . It was pointed out that the injury sustained by the de facto complainant was not very serious in nature, and he was discharged from the hospital within four days of his admission. According to the learned counsel, none of the circumstances exist indicating any intention on the part of the appellants herein to commit the murder of PW1, while inflicting injury upon him. It was further pointed out that there was only a single injury, and the same was allegedly inflicted with a rubber tapping knife which was being kept by A1 along with him, who was admittedly a rubber tapper by profession. In such circumstances, no pre-meditation on the part of the appellants in inflicting the injuries nor the intention to commit the murder of the a